The effectiveness of munitions, such as guided bombs, and strike missiles having forward-directed explosives, and/or configured to impart kinetic energy of the vehicle to a target, may be characterized as a shrinking conic effectiveness volume that defines the limits to its ability to maneuvering, and desirably contains the target during closed-loop terminal homing about the target. Such munitions and missiles satisfy the traditional battlefield where the target could be more readily defined, at least to some degrees, relative to non-targets, such as elements of the civilians population. Reconnaissance aircraft, including reconnaissance UAVs, typically coordinate via communication channels to facilitate a strike mission, such as an artillery strike, on an identified target. A UAV carrying missiles or munitions, may have the ability for a quicker response via launching or releasing a missile or munitions from the UAV. However, the release of a missile or munitions from a UAV will also suffer from the aforementioned shrinking effectiveness cone. Non-traditional engagements exacerbate the need for minimal collateral damage, however, with the use of missiles, or munitions with defined effectiveness (i.e., maneuverability) cones, makes it increasingly impossible, due to shrinking maneuver time and limited maneuverability of the homing vehicle, to change the target or move off-target as the missile or guided bomb closes on the target. FIG. 1A is a planar depiction of the maneuver cone of a maneuverable guided device that may be launched from a carrier such as by an aircraft 5. The depicted guided device has a ground speed to the right in the illustration and experiences the effects of both drag and gravity. The nominal expected trajectory of the guided device 10 may bring it close to a nominal target 20 disposed on the ground 30. Depending on the adjustments of its aerodynamic effectors and/or shift in either its center of pressure or center of mass, the guided device 10 may cause its actual trajectory to fall within volume of the maneuver cone, depicted in the planar illustration of FIG. 1A as a maneuver region 40. With maximal turning downward, the guided device will follow the trajectory illustrated as the most uprange of trajectories from the nominal target, i.e., the uprange maneuver-limited boundary 42 of the maneuver cone 40. With maximal turning upward—exploiting optima glide slope characteristics of the guided device, the guided device will follow illustrated as the most downrange of trajectories from the nominal target, i.e., the downrange maneuver-limited boundary 41 of the maneuver cone 40. The downrange footprint 45 of the base of the maneuver cone 40 may be defined as the distance along the ground 30 from the uprange maneuver-limited boundary 42 intersection 43 with ground 30 to the downrange maneuver-limited boundary 41 intersection 44 with the ground 30. FIG. 1B is a planar depiction of a maneuver cone 50 of the guided device 10 of FIG. 1A, but later in the time of flight. The downrange footprint 55 of the base of the maneuver cone 50 may be defined as the distance along the ground 30 from the uprange maneuver-limited boundary 52 intersection 53 with ground 30 to the downrange maneuver-limited boundary 51 intersection 54 with the ground 30. One may note that the downrange footprint 55 of FIG. 1B is smaller than the downrange footprint 45 of FIG. 1A. That is, in comparing FIG. 1A with FIG. 1B, the region of ground available to the guided device for target intercept shrinks as the maneuvering strike vehicle nears the nominal target.